Circumcision

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I said nothing about them being biologically different. What an odd notion.

Regional biological differences can actually make a big difference in diseases. So the gene for sickle-cell anemia evolved to fend off malaria. Of course that was selected for by extended contact with the disease. However it led to distinct regional based genetic adaptation.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I did was to point out that lack of circumcision has not been shown to correlate to lower incidence of HIV in developed nations -- such as the UK, the nations of Europe and Australia -- where circumcision is not common.

 As I recall for HIV there's some regional genetic variation that allowed some resistance to certain strains. As I recall there were similar regional variation in resistance to leprosy prior to the rise of antibiotics.  I thought you might have been asserting something like that. It's not likely but it is plausible so I wasn't sure what you were really arguing. 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I did was to point out that lack of circumcision has not been shown to correlate to lower incidence of HIV in developed nations -- such as the UK, the nations of Europe and Australia -- where circumcision is not common.

Due to regional variations in behavior I'm not sure that'd be too convincing even if true. It's certainly possible that hygienic differences between western European countries and Africa have an effect. Scientists have reasonably concluded that the effect is due to microbiological colonies in the penis. Now it may be that the bacteria in western Europeans and Africans is different. However the only real way to test this is to change the rate of circumcision in a particular country. Comparing rates between countries isn't helpful as there can be confounding variables. That said what you assert simply isn't unambiguous. Arguably there's significant evidence against it. A recent paper notes "In developed countries male circumcision prevalence is inversely related to HIV prevalence" Male circumcision in Europe is rising although it is still low due to remnants of stigma due to anti-Semitic social views.  If we do cross-country comparisons outside of Europe it is interesting that in Asia countries with more circumcision have less HIV transmission. Again though I'm not sure how helpful that is due to confounding variables. 

The reality is that for prevention of HIV transmission among heterosexuals circumcision is considered more effective than condom use.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To put it another way, why isn't HIV skyrocketing in these developed nations where they don't commonly practice circumcision if circumcision is such a determinative factor in preventing AIDS? And isn't 

Umm STDs have been significantly rising in Europe including HIV. Each of the last few years have been record years for HIV infections. The WHO has been warning of these figures for some years now. It's not just HIV but also bacterial based STDs often with antibacterial resistance. It precisely because of these record rates that many papers have argued for Europe to use circumcision as a cheap public health way of combating the diseases.

Edited November 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the issue is that the majority of kids didn’t used to care about undressing in front other kids, but now the majority do.

That’s a change that’s interesting to consider.  What do you believe is causing it?

I'm not convinced  that the majority in the past didn't care about it. I recall from my youth that it was pretty much expected, whether you cared about it or not, so you went along with it because you could see no way out of it. The difference might be that today there's a keener recognition of the rights of children. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Storm Rider]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reject the insinuation that there is anything pathological or unhealthy about children being shy or modest when faced with a mandate to undress in the presence of peers. I repeat, I’m glad public schools (at least where I live) no longer require it.

I don't think it has anything to do with being pathological, but I don't think it is healthy.  It is simply being overly modest and shy.  Just because I am shy does not entitle me to avoid everything. I think it is healthy to face our fears sometimes and overcome them.  There is nothing wrong with the human body and we each need to learn that regardless of our similarities and differences we are all just humans.  It is okay to look different just as it is to look similar. 

It is okay that we disagree sometimes also. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is being missed in these response posts is a recognition of the rights of children in their tender adolescent and pre-adolescent years not to have to undress in front of peers and strangers if they feel uncomfortable in doing so. And no, I don't accept the notion that recognizing that right and accommodating it is making them sexually perverse.

Yeah, well just look around at this generation and tell me they are well balanced and have a healthy understanding of their bodies and the differences between when their bodies are just being bodies and when they are being used in a sexual manner.  I think Americans, most of the time, have not got a clue.

"Rights" in this context does not apply.  It is nice spin, but there are no "rights" being violated or observed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

"Rights" in this context does not apply.  It is nice spin, but there are no "rights" being violated or observed. 

Tell that to a distraught 9- or 10-year-old horrified to learn that he will shortly enter middle school and will be in a gym class where he will be expected to shower naked in the presence of other students, the majority of whom will be strangers to him.

No, this prospect does not bother every child, but it does bother some, and their concerns should not be dismissed so blithely.

And I don't concede that compelled immodesty is a healthy, get-over-it-and-learn-to-face-your-fears kind of thing.

By the way, I agree that it's OK sometimes to disagree (which you and I seldom do).

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm STDs have been significantly rising in Europe including HIV. Each of the last few years have been record years for HIV infections. The WHO has been warning of these figures for some years now. It's not just HIV but also bacterial based STDs often with antibacterial resistance. It precisely because of these record rates that many papers have argued for Europe to use circumcision as a cheap public health way of combating the diseases.

So is the rate in the UK, Australia and the developed nations of Europe markedly different than in the United States? If not, why not, given that circumcision is still quite common in the U.S. but not in the other nations? And if it is, could the recent rapid influx of refugees and immigrants from less developed nations have something to do with it?

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So is the rate in the UK, Australia and the developed nations of Europe markedly different than in the United States? If not, why not, given that circumcision is still quite common in the U.S. but not in the other nations? And if it is, could the recent rapid influx of refugees and immigrants from less developed nations have something to do with it?

No idea. No paper I've read really has good conclusions. But there's lots of possibilities. As you note the US is far from homogenous. Most European nations, even after recent immigration trends, are still extremely homogenous. There's also presumably very different behavioral patterns. Obviously risky sexual practices will affect the rates a great deal - swamping most other effects.

[Stargazer]

My birth family was not LDS and not particularly religious.  I was circumcised at birth, as was my father. Don't know about his father.  I can't say I've ever had a reason to wish it hadn't happened -- it just doesn't ever occur to me.  Has there been reduced sensation?  How would i know?  No comparison possible.  As for the reasons offered as arguments for having it done -- meaning the reduced sensuality -- it certainly hasn't reduced my sensuality!  So, I'm pretty much ambivalent about the whole thing.

My first son was circumcised, but I didn't have any input on that, as I was away in the Army at the time.  My second thru fourth sons were not circumcised, due mainly to them being born in a German hospital and the procedure not even being offered -- and we didn't ask for it, either, though I suppose we could have.

One of my grandsons was circumcised, and when I asked his mother (my daughter-in-law) at the time why, she just said she preferred it that way.  She wasn't at all religious.

Whenever this matter is compared to female genital mutilation, I guess I understand it intellectually, but it seems a bit over the top to me. FGM is absolutely insane and evil, in my view, but circumcision just doesn't approach it.  

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Stargazer

[Prospector]

On 11/16/2017 at 1:09 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

With all due respect, how would you know this? Have you interviewed an infant before and then after circumcision? Besides, a baby circumcised at or near birth would find the explosion of sensation just one more new and startling phenomenon he had to get used to, like loud noises and bright lights.

The fact that men and boys circumcised as infants clearly don't feel the intense sensations that intact males do makes me sad.

I apologize for the following, as it gets perhaps a little more graphic than is usual for this board -- but if we're discussing this particular subject, it shouldn't be unexpected.

I wonder a bit at this "intense sensations" thing.  As a circumcised man, the sensations that I feel seem quite enough intense to me, so much so that premature ejaculation was always a problem. This has gotten better over the last couple of years as I've started to experience erectile dysfunction -- with a certain drug used to treat ED I am now able to last far longer than previously.

And you can feel saddened all you wish -- it just doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  I don't feel a bit deprived.  It's not like they lopped off my right arm or something.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

My birth family was not LDS and not particularly religious.  I was circumcised at birth, as was my father. Don't know about his father.  I can't say I've ever had a reason to wish it hadn't happened -- it just doesn't ever occur to me.  Has there been reduced sensation?  How would i know?  No comparison possible.  As for the reasons offered as arguments for having it done -- meaning the reduced sensuality -- it certainly hasn't reduced my sensuality!  So, I'm pretty much ambivalent about the whole thing.

My first son was circumcised, but I didn't have any input on that, as I was away in the Army at the time.  My second thru fourth sons were not circumcised, due mainly to them being born in a German hospital and the procedure not even being offered -- and we didn't ask for it, either, though I suppose we could have.

One of my grandsons was circumcised, and when I asked his mother (my daughter-in-law) at the time why, she just said she preferred it that way.  She wasn't at all religious.

Whenever this matter is compared to female genital mutilation, I guess I understand it intellectually, but it seems a bit over the top to me. FGM is absolutely insane and evil, in my view, but circumcision just doesn't approach it.  

 

I submit that the reason the comparison seems over the top to you is that you have been conditioned to accept and approve of male neonatal circumcision but not female. We are all subject to social conditioning to one degree or another. 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Prospector said:

I apologize for the following, as it gets perhaps a little more graphic than is usual for this board -- but if we're discussing this particular subject, it shouldn't be unexpected.

I wonder a bit at this "intense sensations" thing.  As a circumcised man, the sensations that I feel seem quite enough intense to me, so much so that premature ejaculation was always a problem. This has gotten better over the last couple of years as I've started to experience erectile dysfunction -- with a certain drug used to treat ED I am now able to last far longer than previously.

And you can feel saddened all you wish -- it just doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  I don't feel a bit deprived.  It's not like they lopped off my right arm or something.

Many feel no sense of loss or deprivation; others do. 

The point is that under normal circumstances, it ought to be the individual himself, not someone else, who determines whether he is deprived of a body part or undergoes surgery. 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that the reason the comparison seems over the top to you is that you have been conditioned to accept and approve of male neonatal circumcision but not female. We are all subject to social conditioning to one degree or another. 

I suppose you're right, but I still don't feel deprived in any way, having been a recipient of the procedure.  Like I said, however, I didn't choose it for any of my sons for whom I had the option, nor do I regret not doing it.

[Prospector]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many feel no sense of loss or deprivation; others do. 

The point is that under normal circumstances, it ought to be the individual himself, not someone else, who determines whether he is deprived of a body part or undergoes surgery. 

I can't disagree, really, but I am still somewhat annoyed at being pitied over something that doesn't really impact me. This being directed at Hamba more than you.  It seems rather condescending, actually.  Perhaps I shouldn't let it bother me.  

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that the reason the comparison seems over the top to you is that you have been conditioned to accept and approve of male neonatal circumcision but not female. We are all subject to social conditioning to one degree or another. 

There is a pretty big difference in terms of effects. Part of female "circumcision" is to eliminate feeling so as to prevent adultery. It's pretty horrible which is why it's considered illegal in the US. Male circumcision really doesn't have that effect at all typically. I doubt most circumcized people consider it a problem. I certainly don't.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There is a pretty big difference in terms of effects. Part of female "circumcision" is to eliminate feeling so as to prevent adultery. It's pretty horrible which is why it's considered illegal in the US. Male circumcision really doesn't have that effect at all typically. I doubt most circumcized people consider it a problem. I certainly don't.

 

As Hamba pointed out earlier on this thread, circumcision for non-religious reasons came into popular practice in modern times originally because it was thought it would hinder the urge to masturbate. 

Well, that was debunked pretty quickly. Over the years since then, proponents have come up with one excuse after another to keep it going. When one gets debunked, another emerges to take its place. Meanwhile, it has become entrenched through custom and culture. 

Until the ‘80s or so, when there emerged a movement that called the need for it into question. Since then its prevalence has declined from above 90 percent down to 60 percent or less. 

I just bring up the history to point out that the original intent behind routine male circumcision was somewhat comparable to what you identify as the intent behind FGM. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Hamba pointed out earlier on this thread, circumcision for non-religious reasons came into popular practice in modern times originally because it was thought it would hinder the urge to masturbate. 

 

From what I've read, curbing masturbation played a small part.  From what i've read, the military was by far the biggest proponent in the push to circumcise (and normalizing the practice) because they believed it cut down on STDs.    

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just bring up the history to point out that the original intent behind routine male circumcision was somewhat comparable to what you identify as the intent behind FGM. 

Well I'd be careful saying "original intent." I think it's been going on long enough that it's hard to know the original intent although I recognize you're more talking secular defenses rather than origin per se. But in any case original intent is somewhat irrelevant for why someone might choose it today.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what I've read, curbing masturbation played a small part.  From what i've read, the military was by far the biggest proponent in the push to circumcise (and normalizing the practice) because they believed it cut down on STDs.    

Why would circumcision of newborns be seen by the military as a strategy for that purpose? 

Or do you mean they wanted it done to their adult personnel?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I'd be careful saying "original intent." I think it's been going on long enough that it's hard to know the original intent although I recognize you're more talking secular defenses rather than origin per se. But in any case original intent is somewhat irrelevant for why someone might choose it today.

Hamba traced the history quite well, as you’ll note if you go back and read his posts. A man named Kellogg (he of breakfast cereal fame) was one of the early advocates. 

What Hamba said is welll-documented. 

As for why some might choose it today, I think the reasons are quite tenuous and have been for some time, so you have to go back into history to see how it got to be so common. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hamba traced the history quite well, as you’ll note if you go back and read his posts. A man named Kellogg (he of breakfast cereal fame) was one of the early advocates. 

What Hamba said is welll-documented. 

As for why some might choose it today, I think the reasons are quite tenuous and have been for some time, so you have to go back into history to see how it got to be so common. 

I don't think I was disagreeing with the secular origins/defenses. Rather their relevance. As to choosing it today, we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I've mentioned if you look at PubMed there are a lot of papers promoting circumcision due to its effects. One can as I said disagree with the cost/benefit analysis but I think disparaging the benefits is a lost cause. The evidence is pretty strong that as that previously linked paper notes circumcision is more effective against heterosexual HIV infection than typical condom use.

Edited November 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would circumcision of newborns be seen by the military as a strategy for that purpose? 

Or do you mean they wanted it done to their adult personnel?

The military started pushing/requiring soldiers to get circumcised in the early 1900s, especially during WWI.  That then trickled down to the general population through retired soldiers who believed it was much less painful to circumcise their sons at birth than as an adult like they were.  The change in childbirth practices (making it a medical procedure rather than something to be done at home) also helped the procedure gain popularity.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I was disagreeing with the secular origins/defenses. Rather their relevance. As to choosing it today, we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I've mentioned if you look at PubMed there are a lot of papers promoting circumcision due to its effects. One can as I said disagree with the cost/benefit analysis but I think disparaging the benefits is a lost cause. The evidence is pretty strong that as that previously linked paper notes circumcision is more effective against heterosexual HIV infection than typical condom use.

So instead of promoting condom use, we advocate cutting off a functional body part. And we do it routinely to newborns, those who of all people are the least able to have a say in the matter. 

That strikes me as a pretty radical course of action, again, akin to extracting all of your child’s teeth because you don’t think you can trust him to practice good dental hygiene. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So instead of promoting condom use, we advocate cutting off a functional body part. And we do it routinely to newborns, those who of all people are the least able to have a say in the matter. 

That strikes me as a pretty radical course of action, again, extracting all of your child’s teeth because you don’t think you can trust him to practice good dental hygiene. 

Doesn't it seem kind of radical to compare the foreskin to teeth?  If you remove a child's teeth, they can't eat normally.  Removing a child's foreskin does not inhibit their ability to do anything normally though.  

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Doesn't it seem kind of radical to compare the foreskin to teeth?  If you remove a child's teeth, they can't eat normally.  

Not if you fit him with dentures. 

Hey, I don’t claim it’s a good idea. Neither is routine, neonatal circumcision. 

Quote

Removing a child's foreskin does not inhibit their ability to do anything normally though.  [/quote]

There are many men who have felt violated, victimized and resentful because without their consent they had a normal, functioning body part surgically removed at birth. You can disagree with them, but shouldn’t a person be given a say in what happens to his own body when it pertains to a thing like circumcision, where the claimed benefits are so tenuous and have so long been in substantial dispute?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MorningStar]

I let my husband decide with our boys.  I figured if anyone would be passionately against it, it would be him.  He didn't feel like it had impacted him negatively and didn't have a problem without our boys being circumcised. We also had several friend whose boys had to be circumcised at an older age and we decided if it were going to happen, we would rather they not remember it.